RAJIV BHATIA Vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the District Judge, Solan, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner, have been ordered to be dismissed and warrants of attachment of his property have been issued.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the award passed by the Arbitrator in favour of the respondent/decree holder, an execution petition was filed before the court below. The petitioner primarily raised two objections; one with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and the other with regard to the amounts paid by him from time to time having not been accounted and reflected in the statement of accounts by the respondent.

(3.) It is vehemently argued by Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate that the entire loan was disbursed within the State of Himachal Pradesh and even the possession of the loaned vehicle was taken within the State, therefore, it was the Court/Arbitrator in Himachal Pradesh alone, which could have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the proceedings and, therefore, the award being quorum non judice was liable to be set aside in the execution petition as it is settled law that a decision rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity. He would further contend that the petitioner has paid huge amount, but the same has not been accounted for by the decree holder.